Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxa!wetcw
From: wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: belated reply--rent control & property
Message-ID: <777@pyuxa.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 29-May-84 08:57:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxa.777
Posted: Tue May 29 08:57:26 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Jun-84 21:24:53 EDT
References: <7262@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 61

[]
I think that you will find that in the "going back to who owned
it first category", most parcels of land were only held "in trust"
by the government.  The government did not own undeveloped land.
In order to gain ownership of a piece of land, it was, and still is,
a requirement that the land be improved in some manner.  This holds for
lands being homesteaded.  If a certain level of improvement is not
attained over a specified period of time, the land is returned to
the public trust category.  Land as personal property has been
subject to the owners making improvements since time began.  The
social structure recognized this tenent by confering ownership
of the land to the person who did the improvements.

Many primative tribes recognized that they held the land "in trust".
However, they also subscribed to the improvement theory in that
parcels of land were given to those who were willing to make
improvements.  Thus, when settlers "first" arrived, they did
buy some of those "improved" lands from the local tribes, though
not at what could be considered fair value.  As government
developed, the government took over the responsibility for the
unused land in the name of the public.  Then, as more settlers
arrived and spread West, the government would grant parcels of
land to those who would improve that land.  This is where
"ownership" of land got its start.  If you delve into the dim
mists of the past, I think you will find that this method of
land transfer has been going on since the first colonies of
ain Growers made their way up the Danube and its tributaries
to settle into communities.  

I am not trying to say that there have not been countless abuses
in the way land ownership was gained, I am just pointing out
that land ownership, in general, was a result of some improvement
being made in the begining.  That is, the first "owner" or person
to settle on a parcel made some initial improvement and thus
was eligible to "trade" those improvements.  What they were doing
was trading the work they had done on the land.  This same approach
can be used today to gain land for oneself in many places, notably
in Alaska.  If you feel hardy enough, you can homestead a parcel
in Alaska, but you must improve the land in some stipulated manner
or it will revert back to government trust after a period of time.

The notion that land is not owned by anyone may be partially true, 
however, the improvements to the land ARE owned.  Most states
set real estate taxes on two things; the improvements and the
land itself.  For instance, if you put up a house on someone
elses property, that person owns the house because it is an
improvement to their land.  This is the major reason for buying
title insurance.  If the house you built is on someone else's
property, the insurance will pay you for the house and the
other person gets to keep the house.  It happened out on Long
Island two years ago to some 20 families.

I think I am getting off the track.  What I am trying to say is
that ownership of land is real as long as work is performed to
improve that land.  A great deal of land is still held by the
government "in trust".  The government also "owns" land, such
as parks and recreation areas that were "improved".  There are
several categories of land ownership, but to say that land
cannot be owned is just not true.
T. C. Wheeler